According
to the Russian Foreign Ministry, the decision to deploy S-300
anti-air missile system in Syria came after receiving leaked data on
US intentions to bomb Syrian airbases.

"The
S-300 appeared there [in Syria] after experts close to the American
establishment had started leaking information…that the US could hit
Syrian airfields with cruise missiles," Foreign Ministry
spokesperson Maria Zakharova said in an interview with Russia's Dozhd
TV chennel. T

The
Russian Defense Ministry said on Tuesday that a battery of S-300 air
defense systems had been delivered to Syria to protect the naval base
at Tartus, as well as Russia warships deployed off the Syrian coast.

Earlier,
Zakharova critized US Secretary of State John Kerry's statements on
launching an investigation into "war crimes of the Russian
Federation."

"This
is propaganda," Zakharova said in an interview with TV channel
Rain. "For this terminology has very serious legal consequences,
and I think that Kerry tried all of these terms from the perspective
of the discharge situation.

"If
it comes to war crimes, US officials must begin with Iraq. And then
go to Libya, be sure to go to Yemen — find out what's there. I want
to say to juggle these words is very dangerous, because behind the
American representatives really are war crimes."

Zakharova
added that "the American side simply could not fulfill the
ceasefire agreement" in Syria.

"They
themselves have told us that they have no levers of pressure on the
opposition."

On
Friday, US State Department spokesman John Kirby dialed back Kerry's
accusations.

"No,
and the secretary did not allude to that today," he told
reporters when asked if Kerry was ready to say he believed Moscow to
be guilty of war crimes.

800
chasseurs bombarderont la Syrie

Informed
sources in Moscow and Berlin show a plan cooked up by Nato, aimed to
strike the syrian army with the help of dozens of squadrons, and in
the presence of 14 countries.

The
site analysis and information German Firil.net that reports this
information suggests the presence of "more than 800
fighter-bombers" in this operation " would take place in
the coming days."

"Nato
had already designed a similar plan last July, the plan that has not
seen the light of day : at the time some of the members of the
Alliance and their regional allies were not militarily prepared, and
a certain level of coordination between Moscow and Washington
prevented Nato to seriously consider the military option. In effect,
the plan cited above aimed to reproduce the same scenario as in
Serbia of the 90's with the exception that the Russia of 2016 has
nothing comparable to the Russia of 20 years ago"

The
breakdown in dialogue between Washington and Moscow on the one hand
and the meteoric rise of the syrian army in Aleppo on the other seem
to have decided in Nato to launch a major offensive against the
syrian army.

But
looking for Nato?

The
liberation of Aleppo by the syrian army will reduce the field to
victories even larger or even the full recovery of the regions in
syria by the syrian army.

-The
developments on the ground have proven to the Americans and their
allies one thing: the " Assad regime is in need of a maximum of
one year to release the entirety of the syrian territory, and defeat
the plans to dismember it. However, the crisis in Syria would have
had to erode the military capabilities and economic of Syria, Iran
and Russia by its length or even its long-term sustainability.

-
The fact that Syria and its allies, the iranians and russians out,
the head high of this crisis was due to offer on a platter of gold
the control of the half from the Middle East to Russia , which means
the gradual decline of Nato and the deterioration of the situation in
which are the regional allies of the Alliance, namely Turkey, saudi
Arabia and the arab countries of the Persian gulf.

-The
gap is very small between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump would
drive the democrats to resort to the military option, and this, with
the goal of increasing the chances of a victory democratic
presidential US.

-A
victory in syria would ensure the rise of Hezbollah, and would
increase the bargaining power of the pro-Assad to the negotiations.

Russia
has not hidden its concern to see Washington cut the dialogue because
this decision means, "the return of the United States to the
military option".

Moreover,
it is to answer this same concern that Moscow, who are well aware of
the plan Nato has sent his S300 in Syria. The missile batteries S300
will be deployed in the base of Latakia, but the S400 are already
sent to Syria.

According
to the German sources, the meeting of John Kerry and the syrian
opposition to Washington, and his opposition to a military solution
in Syria have not only been a decoy, intended to take short Russia
and its allies, once the offensive launched.

According
to the plan of Nato, the attack will begin with air strikes and
large-scale that will last 3 to 5 days and will be targeted on the
centre of command and the general staff of the syrian army! there
will also be a question of assassination of top commanders of the
syrian army and the attacks on public buildings both in the suburbs
of Damascus that in the suburbs of Aleppo and Latakia.

800
fighter-bombers will take off for Turkey, Jordan and the
Mediterranean and cruise missiles, and Tomahawk to be fired from
american bases in the Persian gulf. Hunters will avoid, obviously,
this part of the airspace of syria is exposed to S400 russians. They
are going to get so the sky syrian through the north-east , Iraq,
Jordan and Israel.

"This
is an operation that resembles the "desert Fox", which was
held in 98, and it is saudi Arabia who is going to finance it,"
according to the German sources. No ground troops will not take place
but the "rebels trained by the CIA" will take over in the
hours following the bombing of the premises referred to. Trucks full
of weapons from Turkey and Jordan will contribute to the advance of
arms and ammunition.

The
offensive will be triggered within a few days unless a truce manages
to install. Israel will not intervene in the case of an emergency.

The
United States will not be able to lose in Syria because that would
mean the defeat of their allies ......

And
Russia? the answer is quite clear.... it is not a question for the '
pro-Assad not losing.

NATO
will not participate in combat operations in Syria and Iraq, NATO
Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg told a conference on Afghanistan
on Wednesday.

“NATO
will not be part of combat operations. We have already started
training Iraqi officers in Jordan, we will soon start to train Iraqi
officers in Iraq, and we will also start to provide support with
AWACS surveillance planes to the international coalition fighting
ISIL,” Stoltenberg said.

Speaking
about the alliance’s actions in Afghanistan, Stoltenberg stressed
that NATO believes it is more important to provide assistance to
Kabul in ensuring the country’s security. “As you know we have
ended our combat operations in Afghanistan so what we do now is
support the Afghan forces,” he said in a doorstep statement before
the European Union-hosted Brussels conference on Afghanistan.

Following
Russian warning of American aircraft being shot down, White House
spokesman confirms plan for U.S. air strikes on Syria has been
rejected.

Following
yesterday’s Russian
warning that
Russia stood ready to shoot down US aircraft or missiles attacking
Syria, the US has confirmed all plans for military action against
Syria have been dropped.

White
House spokesman Josh Earnest confirmed
this speaking
to reporters on Thursday 6th October 2016.

“The
president has discussed in some details why military action against
the Assad regime to try to address the situation in Aleppo is
unlikely to accomplish the goals that many envisioned now in terms of
reducing the violence there. It is much more likely to
lead to a bunch of unintended consequences that are clearly not in
our national interest.”

The
US will never admit that it was the Russian warning that deterred it
from carrying out air and missile strikes, and it is still pretending
that the option of military strikes is still on the table. In
Josh Ernest’s words

“I’m
not going to take any options off the table. I am not going to be in
a position [we’re] taking options off the table for the commander-in-chief.”

However
these are face-saving words.

Military
strikes against Syria would have happened long ago had it not been
for the strong opposition of Russia. The fact the Russian
military is now physically present in Syria with advanced surface to
air missiles and is warning that it stands ready to shoot US aircraft
down if the lives of Russian personnel are put in danger has taken
the idea of US military strikes off the table.

I
would add that these warnings would have been given by the Russians
to the US in private before they were made public yesterday.

On
Friday, German media reported that Berlin was mulling sanctions
against Russia for its role in Syria. A day earlier, the White House
confirmed that Washington too was considering the option. Russian
commentators almost couldn't contain their irritation, suggesting
that sanctions talk is nothing short of showing support for
terrorists.

Sueddeutsche
Zeitung reported on Friday that Norbert Roettgen, the chair of the
Bundestag's Foreign Affairs Committee, had called for new sanctions
against Russia over its role in the Syrian crisis, suggesting that
Moscow must face "consequences and sanctions" for its "war
crimes."

A
day earlier, White House spokesperson Josh Earnest told reporters
that Washington was not ruling out "multilateral efforts outside
of the UN," including sanctions, "to impose costs on Syria
or Russia or others with regard to the situation inside of Syria."

Commenting
on Western officials' latest sanctions threats, Svobodnaya Pressa
contributor Andrei Ivanov suggested that he found "the latest
excuse for imposing sanctions surprising," to say the least,
especially as far as Berlin is concerned.

In
Crimea's case, sanctions could at least be understood as a reaction
to Brussels' efforts to support the pro-EU government in Kiev
following the Maidan coup; moreover, Crimea, and Ukraine, are at
least located in Europe.

"But
talk about concern for the inhabitants of Syria's Aleppo simply looks
strange," Ivanov noted. "Everyone knows that European
officials do not much care about the suffering of civilians in the
Middle East. Otherwise, they would have acted much sooner, and would
have actively fought against the terrorists.

"
Meanwhile, the columnist emphasized, "by and large, in Syria,
Russia is fighting for the security of Europe…And here, just when
the Syrian army has surrounded the militants in Aleppo, and is on the
verge of restoring the rule of law in the country's largest city, the
news leaks from Berlin that the Germans apparently don't agree with
this turn of events."

What's
more, as if in concert, the European Parliament has announced that it
is examining a resolution on the introduction of a no-fly zone over
Syria, and a new round of sanctions against Russia, ostensibly 'to
prevent a humanitarian catastrophe.'

Commenting
on the latter story, Ivanov suggested that two points immediately
jump out at him.

"Firstly,
it's not clear exactly how European countries can technically achieve
a no-fly zone. The situation on the ground in the area is controlled
by the Syrian Army on the one hand and by terrorist gangs on the
other. To create a no-fly zone it would be necessary to install an
air defense system. Who will do it?"

"Are
European countries prepared to provide SAMs to Bashar Assad, so that
he can prevent Russian planes from flying over his country? Or are
the weapons meant for the militants? Or perhaps French planes will
shoot down Russian ones?"

"Secondly,
what interests exactly does Europe have in Syria over which it is
necessary to threaten our country?" Ivanov asked. "The
answer suggests itself: Brussels is showing solidarity with
Washington, who has decided to halt all contact with Moscow in
resolving the Syrian crisis."

"But
Europe, and Germany in particular, have already seen that sanctions
hit not only Russia, but also European businesses. The continent is
suffering huge losses. It was even rumored earlier that countries
were even ready to 'forgive' Russia for Crimea. Now, it turns out
that Berlin and Brussels are ready to face new losses, all on behalf
of militants belonging to terrorist organizations.

Asked
to comment on this absurd situation, Vadim Trukhachev, a senior
lecturer in international politics at the Russian State University
for the Humanities, suggested that it was all part of the
bureaucratic inertia of European officials, who set their sights on
'Russia the enemy' a long time ago, and are now searching for any
excuse to continue the ruinous sanctions policy.

Moreover,
the expert explained, Western capitals have also fixated on the
notion that 'bloody dictator Assad' must go. The problem, he added,
was that in their search of 'moderate opposition' forces, few Western
observers have been able to admit to themselves that this opposition
consists of literal cutthroats.

For
his part, Konstantin Voronov, a senior lecturer at the Moscow-based
Institute of World Economy and International Relations, told
Svobodnaya Pressa that US and European 'concern' over the situation
in Syria is only logical, since the prospects of Damascus actually
defeating the terrorists would infinitely strengthen Moscow's
position in the Middle East. "That frightens most Western
politicians," the analyst noted.

With
the US leading the propaganda charge against Russia, from the
humanitarian convoy attack blamed on Syria and Russia to the
suffering civilian population, Washington's main goal, according to
Voronov, has been first to influence Europe, and then to get it to
agree to actual political decision-making.

Ultimately,
the analyst noted, whether it be Ukraine or Syria, US and European
sanctions policy is aimed, more than anything else, at pressuring
Moscow into regime change. Whether this occurs violently or via an
elite transformation doesn't matter. What matters, to both Washington
and Brussels, is that Russia becomes "just a normal European
country," one "without geopolitical ambitions – a purely
regional power fixated exclusively on domestic issues, and with
limited foreign policy objectives."

"We
did just that in the 1990s," Voronov stressed. "We limited
our geopolitical interests, but received no positive response from
the West. On the contrary, the West openly interfered in our internal
affairs. Therefore, today's struggle in the international arena is
one of high stakes. At one time, we embarked to try to have the same
footing as the West – to build the same kind of economy and the
same socio-political system. But this only exacerbated the
geopolitical struggle."

Accordingly,
the analyst noted, today, Russia has nowhere to step back from. "We
should not expect to make friends with the West by withdrawing from
all the important geopolitical frontiers. Quite the opposite: a weak
Russia would only be ripe to be finished off," Voronov concluded

Signaling
a low-point in Washington-Moscow relations perhaps not seen since the
Cold War, the Obama administration on Friday ended months of
speculation and blamed Russia for deploying its hackers to meddle
with the U.S. election.

The
accusation came at the end of a week that saw the United States halt
negotiations with Russia over joint operations in Syria targeting
extremist groups.

The
public finger pointing also bows to weeks of pressure from Capitol
Hill and national security experts, who have lambasted the White
House for staying silent about the series of hacks that have roiled
the Democratic party, exposed the inner machinations of political
organizations, revealed the private exchanges of high-ranking
officials and fueled doubts about the electoral system's integrity.

On
Friday, the administration broke that silence.

"These
thefts and disclosures are intended to interfere with the U.S.
election process," said Jeh Johnson, the secretary of homeland
security, and James Clapper, the director of national intelligence,
in a statement. "Such activity is not new to Moscow — the
Russians have used similar tactics and techniques across Europe and
Eurasia, for example, to influence public opinion there."

"We
believe, based on the scope and sensitivity of these efforts, that
only Russia's senior-most officials could have authorized these
activities," he added.

The
administration urged "state and local election officials to be
vigilant and seek cybersecurity assistance" from the Department
of Homeland Security.

The
blockbuster allegation is expected to further erode the
already-hostile relations between Russia and the U.S.....

Toxic
relations: US accuses Russia of war crimes in Syria

US
Secretary of State John Kerry has accused Russia of committing ‘war
crimes’ in Syria. The explosive statement comes on the heels of
news that Russia is backing a United Nations envoy’s idea of
escorting Al-Nusra terrorists out of Aleppo rather than bombing them.
RT America’s Alexey Yaroshevsky has the report.

US
government officially blames Russia for political hacks

In
a joint statement by the Office of National Intelligence and the
Department of Homeland Security, the US government officially accused
Russia for the WikiLeaks and Guccifer 2.0 hacks. The statement gave
no specific evidence or reason behind the hacks, but said US
officials were “confident” Russia was involved due to the methods
used by the hackers. RT correspondent Caleb Maupin has the report.

Russian
DM: US Should Think of Consequences Before Attacking Syrian Army

6 October, 2016

Officials
with the US State Department have repeatedly talked of
“non-diplomatic options” recently in Syria. Though they’re
trying to be coy, what they’re really talking about is overt
military action against the Syrian government, attacks which would
threaten Russian forces embedded with them, and likely drag Russia
into a shooting war with the US.

Russia’s
Defense Ministry was quick to urge caution today, noting that they’d
recently deployed air defense systems into Syria specifically to
counter the threat of US attack, and that the US should “carefully”
consider the potential consequences of launching such strikes.

The
State Department acknowledged they were aware of the Russian warning,
but insistedthat
internal discussion within the US government continues on the
“non-diplomatic” options, which is to say, starting a war with
Russia. Spokesman John Kirby added there would be no discussion with
Russia over the matter.

Kirby
added that the US was not “giving up” on Aleppo, and was
continuing to discuss options to prevent the Syrian government from
capturing the remainder of the city, which is held by al-Qaeda’s
Nusra Front. This appears to be fueling much of the rhetoric on
Russia.